From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Suggestion] New function `emacs-version>=' Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 15:11:09 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <67B8CED503F3D511BB9F0008C75DAD66054855CB@dewdfx17> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1052162303 23847 80.91.224.249 (5 May 2003 19:18:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 19:18:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Mon May 05 21:18:17 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19ClTd-0006Bz-00 for ; Mon, 05 May 2003 21:18:17 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19ClWl-0004g2-00 for ; Mon, 05 May 2003 21:21:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19ClTL-0005Tg-01 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 05 May 2003 15:17:59 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19ClOF-0003iv-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2003 15:12:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19ClNd-00033m-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2003 15:12:05 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19ClMk-0002lF-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2003 15:11:10 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 19ClMj-0007Lz-00; Mon, 05 May 2003 15:11:09 -0400 Original-To: "Wedler, Christoph" In-reply-to: <67B8CED503F3D511BB9F0008C75DAD66054855CB@dewdfx17> (christoph.wedler@sap.com) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:13703 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13703 A "lexical-order extension" of < and > looks like a good idea. A remaining question: - will `emacs-version>=' be defined based on that? If anyone wants it, I guess so. Of couse, as I said before, if a feature/fix A could be tested *directly*, one should use that test, not some version or Emacs-vs-XEmacs test. E.g., - (featurep 'some-feature) - (fbound 'some-function) ; I only mentioned this in my prev mail - (boundp 'some-var) People have also shown various ways of testing the behavior of a function to see if a bug has been fixed. I think those are good approaches. But I agree with you that testing indirectly related criteria--criteria that are only indirect ways of testing for a certain version--is not wise, and that it is better to test the version number openly than to for the version indirectly.